The topic was a good one: opposite ends of the social media spectrum. Is it better to be socially connected online but spend the majority of your life on it, or is it better to be a digital recluse and perhaps suffer the consequences? I would be an example of the latter.
Or do your really need to be connected at all?
From the article:
Timothy is famous for his book The 4-Hour Workweek a book looking at the simplification of life, outsourcing and focusing upon the important tasks at hand. Tim certainly works hard for his money but his approach is certainly a little different than Gary's.
For example, Tim has written here at ProBlogger about how he finds that posting every 4-6 days on his blog is enough (and actually beneficial).
On the other hand, Gary Vaynerchuck's inspirational keynote at Blog World Expo showed a different approach with a guy working massive hours, arguing that you should respond to every single email you get and that you need to be producing content every day.
Both of these guys have built successful businesses and great online presences through their blogging and social media (and I'm sure that there are some similarities between them also ) but both have done it differently.
To me this is encouraging. There are not 'formulas' and there is room for a diversity of approaches!
Which bloggers approach do you resonate with most - Gary or Tim?"
Who do you most resonate with? More email, Twitter, and blogging -- or less?
Timothy Ferriss is author of the #1 New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Businessweek bestseller, The 4-Hour Workweek, which has been sold into 33 languages. He is a guest lecturer at Princeton University in high-tech entrepreneurship.